- From: Majid Valipour via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:48:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think css syntax in general does not throw away invalid declarations so it is forward-compatible that way. I looked at a few example of at-rules definition and cargo culted this wording e.g., * [@font-face](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-face-rule) > The @font-face rule accepts the descriptors defined in this specification. * [@viewport] > This section presents the descriptors that are allowed inside an @viewport rule. Other descriptors than those listed here will be dropped. * [@font-face] > The @font-face rule accepts the descriptors defined in this specification. Your suggested wording from css-properties-values-api seems that way mostly because there is wording prior to that that certain descriptors are required and otherwise the rule itself is considered invalid. > @property rules require a syntax and inherits descriptor; if either are missing, the entire rule is invalid and must be ignored. The initial-value descriptor is optional only if the syntax is the universal syntax definition, otherwise the descriptor is required; if it’s missing, the entire rule is invalid and must be ignored. > Unknown descriptors are invalid and ignored, but do not invalidate the @property rule. Having said that changing the wording to be more explicit is fine with me. e.g., > Only the descriptors defined in this section are considered valid in the <declaration-list> inside of @scroll-timeline rule. Unknown descriptors are invalid and ignored, but do not invalidate the @property rule. -- GitHub Notification of comment by majido Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5109#issuecomment-635361347 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2020 13:48:21 UTC